The main legal point established in the judgment is that the change of appellate forum from the Subordinate Judge to the District Court, as per the notification dated 31-8-1989, did not affect the right of appeal but only altered the forum, depriving the Subordinate Judge of his appellate authority.

Bhat,J.

1. The revision petition comes before us on a reference by T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. doubting the correctness of the decision in C.R.P. No.2559 of 1989 between Kalloli Kunhikannan and another v. Mannan Paithal and another reported in (1990 (1) KLT 651:1990 (1) K.L.J. 407).

2. The revision arises on a petition filed by the respondent, land-lord of a shop room for eviction of the tenant under S.11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1963 (for short, 'The Act') on the ground that the tenant (revision-petitioner) has kept rent in arrears and that the land-lord bonafide needs the building for the occupation of her dependent son, P.W.1 to enable him to start trade in auto spare parts. The petition was opposed by the tenant who admitted arrears of rent but denied the need alleged. He raised the plea under first proviso to S.11(3) that the land lord has other buildings of her own in her possession in the same town. He also raised the plea under second proviso to S.11(3) that he depends for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the tailoring business conducted by him in the disputed shop room and that no other suitable building is available in the locality for him to carry on the tailoring business. Learned Rent Controller passed an order for eviction under S.11(2)(b) of the Act, but denied relief of eviction based on S.11(3) of the Act, rejecting the plea of bona fide need for the purpose of land-lord's son, P.W.1. Learned Rent Controller also rejected the tenants claim for benefit of second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that subsequently the eviction order under S.11(2)(b) was vacated on arrears of rent belong deposited, though learned counsel for the respondent is unable to confirm the correctness of this statement.

3. The land-lord on 10-10-1986 filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, appellate authority constituted under S.18 of the Act against rejection of the demand for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. The Subordinate Judge was then the appellate authority by virtue of a notification issued by the Government under S.18 of the Act, On 31-8-1989, the State Government issued another notification conferring on District Judges the powers of the appellate authorities for the purpose of the Act in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject. This notification was published in the official gazette on 26-9-1989 and took effect only with effect from that date. The High Court, on the administrative side, issued an official memorandum to the concerned judges stating as follows:

"When the notification comes into force, the Subordinate Judges will send the records of the pending cases to the concerned District Judges after issuing notice to the counsel/ parties requesting them to appear before the transferee court on the dates specified therein, under intimation to the High Court The District Judge will take up the cases on the notified dates and pass appropriate orders".

In accordance with this official memorandum, the Subordinate Judge sent the records of the appeal to the District Judge of the District who ultimately heard the appeal and allowed the appeal filed by the land-lord. Learned District Judge reversed the finding of the Rent Controller under S.11(3) of the Act and held that the ground for eviction thereunder has been established. This revision petition is against the order of the learned District Judge.

4. In Kalloli Kunhikannan and another v. Mannan Paithal and another (1990(1) KLT 651:1990 (1) KLJ 407) Radhakrishnan Menon, J. has held that institution of a proceeding carries with it right of appeal then existing in accordance with the law then in force, that the vested right of appeal can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment expressly or by necessary implication and not otherwise. This principle has

been applied to hold that an appeal filed before the Subordinate Judge (appellate authorit